Delhi District Court
Rupinder Singh vs M/S Advance Technical Resources And Ors on 18 January, 2025
DLCT130031522022
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER-06, LABOUR COURT, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURT, D.D.U. MARG, NEW DELHI.
LCA No. 844/2022
Date of Institution 02.06.2022
Date of Award 18.01.2025
BETWEEN THE WORKMAN
Sh. Rupinder Singh S/o Sh. Harchand Singh,
R/o KH-9, Gali No.7, H-Block, Sindhi Colony,
Swaroop Nagar, North West, Delhi-42
AND
THE MANAGEMENTS
1) M/s Advance Technical Resources
( Thorugh its authorized signatory)
2173/167, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar,
North West, Delhi-110035
2) M/s ABR Chill
LCA No. 844/22 Page 1 of 15
2173/167, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar,
North West, Delhi-110035
3) Mr. Ramesh Kumar Rooprai
2173/167, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar,
North West, Delhi-110035
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the statement of claim as filed by the workman directly in labour court under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') against the managements with a prayer that the managements be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,83,000/- to him alongwith 18% interest from the date of due till its actual realization as mentioned by him in his claim.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPLICATION
2. Brief facts as stated by the workman in his statement of claim are that he had been appointed as Labourer in management/respondent organization w.e.f. 03.09.2017 and he had been serving in managements organization with utmost honesty, dedication, efficiency and loyalty and was getting a monthly salary/wages of Rs.12,000/-. The management/ respondent did not pay the full monthly emoluments/wages to the workman from 2019 LCA No. 844/22 Page 2 of 15 to 2021 amounting to Rs.2,11,000/- and when workman demanded his outstanding salary, the managements avoided the said payment giving excuses and did not pay for the last 2 year (approx.) salary to the workman which amounts to Rs.2,83,000/- along with interest of 18% p.a from date of due till its actual realization.
2.1 It is further stated that in November, 2021, the management/respondent suddenly called the workman and told him that his services are being terminated. The managements neither gave any prior notice of termination of service nor gave payment in lieu of that notice, thus the services of workman have been terminated illegally. The workman requested the managements not throw him from service illegally then the managements threatened him. Thereafter, the workman served a legal notice dated 20.10.2021 upon the managements requesting them not to terminate the services of the workman illegally. The said notice was duly served upon the managements through e-mail and Whatsapp but the same was not replied by the management. The managements illegally terminated the services of workman in November, 2021 without giving any notice or pay in lieu of notice or even payment of all the dues of workman. Lastly it is prayed that this court may kindly pass an award in favour of the workman LCA No. 844/22 Page 3 of 15 thereby directing the managements to pay Rs. 1,55,619/- alongwith 18% interest to the workman.
REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The managements have contested the matter and filed their reply/written statement stating therein that the present application is baseless and without any merits; that the present application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed because the proceedings u/s. 33-C(2) of I. D. Act is execution in nature and there is no award, order or decree in favour of the applicant from any competent court of law; that present application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed because the claimant was not the employee of the managements and was working as freelance independent contractor in the open market for so many customers/employers/factories/establishment after settling his amount for that particular work and the managements also used to take the services of the claimant occasionally on daily/piece rate basis in exigency of work; that the present application of the applicant u/s 2(A) of 1. D. Act is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed because the claimant cannot claim any monetary benefits u/s 2(A) of I. D. Act.
LCA No. 844/22 Page 4 of 153.1 It is further stated that the the management no. 1 was running a very small unit and no one was employed by the management no. 1, and said unit of the management no. 1, is non- operational since November, 2019, due which the Authorities of GST had cancelled the registration of the management no. 1, w.e.f. 06/12/2019. It is further stated that the management no. 2 came into existence in the month of July 2021, when the managements got itself registered with the GST vide registration No. 07DIRPR8595HIZS, and prior to that the management no. 2, was not doing any kind of business activities. This fact itself proved that the claimant has never worked with the management no. 2.
3.2 On merits, It has been specifically denied that the workman/applicant had been appointed as Labourer in managements w.e.f. 03.09.2017 and had been serving in the managements organization and was getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. It has been submitted that the claimant was not the employee of the managements and was working as freelance independent contractor in the open market for so many customers/employers/factories/establishment after settling his amount for that particular work and the managements also used to take the work from the claimant occasionally on daily/piece rate LCA No. 844/22 Page 5 of 15 basis in exigency of work. Rest of the contents as mentioned in the application/petition have been denied as wrong and incorrect. Lastly, it has been prayed that application of the applicant be dismissed with cost.
REJOINDER
4. The workman thereafter filed rejoinder wherein all the contents of the written statement were denied and the facts of the statement of claim were reiterated and reaffirmed as correct and it is prayed that an order be passed in favour of the workman in terms of prayer made by him in claim.
ISSUES
5. After the completion of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.00.2022:-
i) Whether the workman is entitled for balance outstanding amount of salary with all consequential benefits as prayed for?OPW
ii) Whether the workman was not employee of managements and was working s freelance independent contractor in the open market for so many customers/employers/factories/establishment after settling his amount for particular work?OPM LCA No. 844/22 Page 6 of 15
iii) Relief.
5.1 After the framing of issues, both the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence to prove their respective contentions/pleas.
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
6. The workman has examined himself as WW1. The workman has relied upon documents following documents as under:-
i) Break down of salary/wages of workman handwritten by the proprietor of managements and the copy of Agreement dated 18.06.2019 as Ex. PW1/1 (colly) & Ex. PW1/2 respectively.
ii)Whatsapp chat between the workman and proprietor of managements as Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
iii) Recording of managements and workman as Ex. PW1/4.
iv) Legal notice alongwith dispatch/delivery report as Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
v)Failure report u/s 2A (I & 2) of ID Act, 1947 as Ex/ PW1/6.
vi) Copy of Aadhaar Card of workman as Ex. PW1/7.
vii) Details of money due upon the managements as Ex. PW1/8.
viii) Handwritten statement given to managements by the workman LCA No. 844/22 Page 7 of 15 physically and through whatsapp as Ex. PW1/9 and
ix) Serving Management during Covid-19 Pandemic is Ex. PW1/10.
6.1 The workman was cross examined by the managements and thereafter, workman closed his evidence on 13.07.2023.
MANAGEMENTS' EVIDENCE
7. Thereafter matter was fixed for management's evidence. The managements examined Sh. Ramesh Kumar Rooprai, Proprietor of management no.1 as MW1. The MW1 has relied upon documents following documents as under:-
i) Ex. MW1/1 is the Cancellation of GST registration of management no.1.
ii) Ex. MW1/2 (colly) is the medical treatment document.
iii) Ex. MW1/3 is registration certificate of management no.2.
7.1 He was also cross-examined by Ld. AR for the workman and accordingly managements also closed its evidence on 05.09.2024.
LCA No. 844/22 Page 8 of 158. I have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the record.
9. On perusal of record, my issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.2:-Whether the workman was not employee of managements and was working s freelance independent contractor in the open market for so many customers/employers/factories/establishment after settling his amount for particular work?OPM 9.1 The onus to prove this issue was upon the management. The managements have relied upon the statement of MW1 being the Proprietor of the managements at the relevant time and he stated that he used to look after the work of the management no.2 in the year 2021 & 2022. He further stated that the management no.1 has not been in operation after 2019 and no one is working under him in management no.1. He further stated that the nature of the operation of his work was that of consultancy with regard to air conditioning in factories and various bills were raised but he cannot produce the said bills from the period 2019 to 2022. He further stated that he used to pay the workman hired on contract LCA No. 844/22 Page 9 of 15 basis in cash and did not maintain any statement of account. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not producing the accounts book/ ledger etc. He admitted the suggestion that the mobile number of the workman was registered on India Mart for management no.1 as a support person. However, he denied the suggestion that the workman was employed under him. The MW1 admitted that he received the legal notice through email through his registered email ID but, did not reply to the same and when confronted with document Ex. PW1/1 (collectively) at page no.12 & 13 being the accounts statement of the workman made by the management, he stated that the handwriting is not his and it has not been prepared by him. He further admitted the suggestion that the technicians were working under him on contract basis whose names are mentioned at page no.13 of document Ex. PW1/2, which is an AMC Agreement.
9.2 Apart from denying the documents placed on record by the workman, the managements have reiterated that the workman was working on call basis under the contract of the management no.1 and accordingly, there is no question of termination of his services or payment of any outstanding amount of salary as he was paid on cash basis and he was never an LCA No. 844/22 Page 10 of 15 employee of the managements and was working as a freelance independent contractor in the open market for various customers, employers and factories. The managements have not produced on record any other proof or document to show that the workman was working as an independent freelance contractor with other employers and factories. Even though the workman has produced on record a few AMCs with Rigus Business Centre, which is Ex. PW1/2, which was admitted to be an AMC entered into by the managements with pages 8 to 12 bearing signatures of the MW1. Despite the onus being put on the managements to show that the workman was not an employee of the managements and was working as a freelance independent contractor in the open market, the managements have not been able to discharge its burden.
9.3 However, it is necessary for this court to give a finding on the issue whether the workman can actually be considered as an employee of the managements for entitling him to the relief as prayed for by him. The workman has relied upon various documents including his affidavit of evidence included mentioned various documents mentioned in his affidavit of evidence Ex. WW1/A which includes the demand letter, postal receipt etc. The cross examination of the workman reveals that he admitted that no LCA No. 844/22 Page 11 of 15 appointment letter was issued to him by the managements and he has no document to show that he ever took any wages from the management. He relied upon the document Ex. PW1/2, which is an AMC between the managements and Rigus Business Centre wherein the last page i.e. page no.13 of the said document does not bear the signatures of the owner of the management/MW1 and it only bears the signatures of Rigus Business Centre. Apart from denying that he was working as a freelance independent A.C. Mechanic in open market, WW1 has relied upon the conversation between the alleged proprietor of management no.1 and himself. A perusal of the said conversation reveals that there is nothing to show or support that the voice recordings are that of the workman and proprietor of the management. There is nothing on record to show that the workman was under continuous employment of the managements as is claimed by him or that he was being regularly paid by the managements including his traveling expenses etc. The workman has relied upon the document Ex. PW1/1 which is a photocopy of some account being maintained allegedly by the proprietor of the managements which has been denied by MW1 and there is nothing on record to suggest that the said document Ex. PW1/1 collectively running into four pages is the amount that was being paid by the proprietor of the managements to the LCA No. 844/22 Page 12 of 15 workman. The document Ex. PW1/1 could have been proved either by admission of the managements or by maker of the same. The handwriting on the same has not been proved by the workman to show that the workman was being paid as is written therein by the management. The document Ex. PW1/10 is the another letter issued by Apollo Pharmacy Ltd. showing the workman to be designated as a worker with Apollo Pharmacy Ltd. during the Covid-19 Pandemic. This document also does not even in any way help the workman in establishing that he was a regular employee of the managements in absence of any attendance record/muster roll/payment of wages etc. The remaining document relied upon by the workman is Ex. PW1/3, which is a whatsapp chat allegedly between the proprietor of the managements and workman, the authenticity of which is questionable and has not been proved as per law. There is no certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act to prove the same or to show that the same is in fact a chat between the workman and the proprietor of the management.
9.4 Thus, in view of the above-mentioned observations, it has not been proved that the workman was employed by the managements and hence, this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the managements.
LCA No. 844/22 Page 13 of 15ISSUE NO.1:-Whether the workman is entitled for balance outstanding amount of salary with all consequential benefits as prayed for?OPW
10. In this regard, the onus was upon the workman. In view of my findings given on issue no.2 wherein the workman has been held to be not an employee of the management, there is no question of payment of any money due or outstanding by the managements to the workman as he was never an employee under the managements and thus, the calculation filed, which is Ex. PW1/8, is not substantiated by any cogent proof that the said amount is pending and payable u/s 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the managements.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.3)
11. Keeping in view of the findings of the court on issue no.1 and 2, it is held that the workman is not entitled to any relief against the management.
12. With these observations, the claim as filed by the workman u/s 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is LCA No. 844/22 Page 14 of 15 disposed off. Judicial file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signedCHETNA by CHETNA SINGH Pronounced in open court SINGH Date: 2025.01.18 04:55:52 +0530 on 18.01.2025 (CHETNA SINGH) PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-06 ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT NEW DELHI. LCA No. 844/22 Page 15 of 15